TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

I have often wondered about the holes that will remain in the Supercharger network even when it is complete/established.
The USA is so large geographically and has many rural areas that need/will need coverage, but a full-on Supercharger would be overkill or too costly for the near-term.

I had thought Tesla may come out with a mini Superchargers, maybe a self contained unit that can take 50kw and be installed without too much cost in commercial buildings, two kiosks. Essentially, a Tesla Chademo, but with a strong bias towards versatility and ease of install.

With 72 amp chargers being standard hardware and HPWC's being daisy chainable, yep that is a word, I could imagine a cost effective option to fill these holes would be a baby Supercharger, 5 HPWCs sharing 40kw, something along those lines.

This idea could also be implemented at existing Superchargers to take alleviate some demand. If you are going to be in an area for a few hours and can get 20kw, that works.

Another aspect of this is the M3. Maybe all M3s could use these for free, pay for full SC access.

New ones selling on shop.teslamotors.com now are daisy-chain able, to share a single fed, I gather and split the power across them, like the Superchargers.

Click to expand...

They aren't really "daisychainable" in the correct sense of the word (is it a real word with -able on the end?) - you can daisychain their data signals, but not the A/C power. Each one has to be powered via it's own power feed - New Wall Connector :)

One part of the plan may be to sell V2G services someday. Now they have a 72 A charger in every car, and low cost HPWCs convincing owners to install higher ampacity circuits than the UMC can handle. This allows them to aggregate more power to sell into markets for frequency regulation and other grid services. Tesla could even use the full 72 A for their own purposes, while only allowing the owner to use 48 A to charge if they do not pay for the 72 A option.

This still will be good for owners, allowing Tesla to install more Superchargers, keep the M3 at $35k, and still be profitable. Owners could opt-in to allow V2G. Many services, like frequency regulation, only require a small amount of energy to be exported, with almost no affect on battery life.

One part of the plan may be to sell V2G services someday. Now they have a 72 A charger in every car, and low cost HPWCs convincing owners to install higher ampacity circuits than the UMC can handle. This allows them to aggregate more power to sell into markets for frequency regulation and other grid services. Tesla could even use the full 72 A for their own purposes, while only allowing the owner to use 48 A to charge if they do not pay for the 72 A option.

This still will be good for owners, allowing Tesla to install more Superchargers, keep the M3 at $35k, and still be profitable. Owners could opt-in to allow V2G. Many services, like frequency regulation, only require a small amount of energy to be exported, with almost no affect on battery life.

GSP

Click to expand...

I don't think they'd be able to get V2G capacity credit for capacity that the cars can never charge at, unless the market regulators are woefully negligent. 72 A chargers could make all of the vehicles provide more V2G if the connection is good.

I think this has more to do with the fact that as Tesla's battery capacities are increasing, 72 A starts to be a required minimum to ensure overnight charging ability.

Also daisy chaining is misused here. In an electrical sense, daisy chaining would mean you have a bunch of chargers connected in parallel, then at the end of one of the chargers (in series) would be another charger circuit hub containing more parallel connections. This doesn't make sense. You can daisy chain power strips, but it's very unsafe as there's a high potential to overload not just the wall circuit, but the first power strip in the chain.

They aren't really "daisychainable" in the correct sense of the word (is it a real word with -able on the end?) - you can daisychain their data signals, but not the A/C power. Each one has to be powered via it's own power feed - New Wall Connector :)

I don't think they'd be able to get V2G capacity credit for capacity that the cars can never charge at, unless the market regulators are woefully negligent. 72 A chargers could make all of the vehicles provide more V2G if the connection is good.

I think this has more to do with the fact that as Tesla's battery capacities are increasing, 72 A starts to be a required minimum to ensure overnight charging ability.

Also daisy chaining is misused here. In an electrical sense, daisy chaining would mean you have a bunch of chargers connected in parallel, then at the end of one of the chargers (in series) would be another charger circuit hub containing more parallel connections. This doesn't make sense. You can daisy chain power strips, but it's very unsafe as there's a high potential to overload not just the wall circuit, but the first power strip in the chain.

I have often wondered about the holes that will remain in the Supercharger network even when it is complete/established.
The USA is so large geographically and has many rural areas that need/will need coverage, but a full-on Supercharger would be overkill or too costly for the near-term.

I had thought Tesla may come out with a mini Superchargers, maybe a self contained unit that can take 50kw and be installed without too much cost in commercial buildings, two kiosks. Essentially, a Tesla Chademo, but with a strong bias towards versatility and ease of install.

With 72 amp chargers being standard hardware and HPWC's being daisy chainable, yep that is a word, I could imagine a cost effective option to fill these holes would be a baby Supercharger, 5 HPWCs sharing 40kw, something along those lines.

This idea could also be implemented at existing Superchargers to take alleviate some demand. If you are going to be in an area for a few hours and can get 20kw, that works.

Another aspect of this is the M3. Maybe all M3s could use these for free, pay for full SC access.

Am I onto something?

Click to expand...

The US Lower 48's Interstate network needs no more than 200 more Superchargers to cover it with less than 125 mile separation and less than 100 separation in colder northern areas. Coverage will not be a problem.

The reason for linking HPWCs is sites can either have a limited amount of service available, or that they don't want to incur high demand charges based on the maximum power. Linking limits the total peak power, while providing an opportunity for cars to charge faster when some chargers are unoccupied or one or more of the cars is fully charged. That is linking means more plugs without more power. Typical driving patterns means that a plug is more important than the charging power.

Home charging for normal use
Overnight hotel charging when you're away from home.
Superchargers for traveling longer distances in a single day
Destination charging to get you some charge while visiting somewhere beyond range.

I could see 72A HPWC installed on secondary highways that are ~200-300 miles from a major interstate or other Supercharger installations. For example, US50 across Nevada and Utah could have some in Austin, Eureka, Ely and Delta. This would enable going from Reno to West Wendover or Nephi with one interim stop, a destination charge overnight and a second interim stop if needed the next day. Forty-five miles of range per hour is slow. Superchargers would not get much use along these roads until BEVs represent a significant number of vehicles.

Similarly there are many roads that connect one interstate to another. A strategically-placed HPWC somewhere in the middle could open up travel between these interstates with the time savings of a more direct route plus a 90-minute HPWC charge more than offsetting driving an extra 100+ miles just to stay on the Supercharger Highway.

I was thinking the 72 A charger was a $1500 software update. I checked the S configurator and it a $1500 option that also says "enable after delivery for $1900." So I guess it is a $1900 software option.

Rolo,

It makes sense that for customers that do not buy the 72A upgrade, Tesla could not be credited with more than 48 A per car for demand response. However, IF (big if) the new charger is bi-directional then could Tesla export power at 72 A per car for frequency regulation? If so, they could get credit for that capacity. I think I have read there are several other services that high power batteries can sell, and only export very little energy, but I am not an expert on the subject.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.